catch exception

[junw2000]

class A
{
public:
A()
{
try
{
p = new int;
//Other lines that may throw exception.
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}

private:
int *p;
};

In the above code, catch the exception in A's constructor to delete p.
Is it OK? Is there a better way to delete p?

Thanks.

Jack

[Andre Kostur]

ju******@gmail.com wrote in news:33ee848b-a4f5-44e9-86dd-
9b**********@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

class A
{
public:
A()
{
try
{
p = new int;
//Other lines that may throw exception.
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}

private:
int *p;
};

In the above code, catch the exception in A's constructor to delete p.
Is it OK? Is there a better way to delete p?

It will work... what would be better is to use some sort of smart pointer
class, such as std::auto_ptr. Assuming you need the dynamic allocation in
the first place (In this simple example, it makes no sense to make p
dynamic at all...)

Example:
class A
{
public:
A() : p(new int)
{
// Other potentially throwing code
}

private:
std::auto_ptr<intp;
};

[red floyd]

On Aug 22, 2:15*pm, [e-mail] wrote:

class A
{
public:
* * A()
* * {
* * * * *try
* * * * *{
* * * * * * * *p = new int;
* * * * * * * *//Other lines that may throw exception.
* * * * *}
* * * * *catch(...)
* * * * *{
* * * * * * * *delete p;
* * * * *}

private:
* * *int *p;

};

In the above code, catch the exception in A's constructor to delete p.
Is it OK? Is there a better way to delete p?

Yes it's OK (modulo the missing closing brace), but better is:

class A
{
public:
A() : p(new int(0))
{
// do other stuff which may throw
}

private:
some_smart_pointer_type<intp;

};

Now if that stuff throws, the smart pointer for p will be destroyed,
which will delete p.
Pick your smart pointer -- see boost and tr1. Or, if you know this
object won't be getting copied, or you have a deep copy constructor,
you could use std::auto_ptr

[gpderetta]

On Aug 22, 11:15 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

class A
{
public:
A()
{
try
{
p = new int;
//Other lines that may throw exception.
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}

private:
int *p;

};

If 'new int' throws, you'll be deleting an uninitialized pointer which
is UB.
It is safer and simpler to use a smart pointer.

HTH,

--
gpd

[Juha Nieminen]

Andre Kostur wrote:

ju******@gmail.com wrote in news:33ee848b-a4f5-44e9-86dd-
9b**********@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

>class A
{
public:
A()
{
try
{
p = new int;
//Other lines that may throw exception.
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}

private:
int *p;
};

In the above code, catch the exception in A's constructor to delete p.
Is it OK? Is there a better way to delete p?

It will work...

Really? What will be the value of p if 'new' throws?

Wouldn't it be better like this:

A(): p(0)
{
try
{
p = new int;
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}
}

[Joe Greer]

Juha Nieminen <no****@thanks.invalidwrote in news:t5Qrk.51$ME2.22
@read4.inet.fi:

>
Really? What will be the value of p if 'new' throws?

Wouldn't it be better like this:

A(): p(0)
{
try
{
p = new int;
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}
}

It depends upon what you are after, In the previous case, if new
throws, p is never assigned a value and A is never constructed. If all
of your resources are wrapped in RAII classes (such as auto_ptr), then
anything constructed prior to the new throwing will be cleaned up as the
exception leaves A's constructor. This is all done for you. The code
you provided really doesn't do anything. If the new throws, then p
won't need deleted. If the new works, then it won't be deleted. If you
didn't want the new to prevent the construction of A, then you could do
something like:

A()
{
try
{
std::auto_ptr<intp(new int);
//do stuff with p
// p gets automatically deleted as it leaves this scope.
} catch(...)
{ // don't really care if the above worked or not
}

// do other stuff
}

-or-

A()
{
try
{
p.reset(new int);
//do stuff with p
// p gets automatically deleted when A gets deleted.
} catch(...)
{ // don't really care if the above worked or not
}

// do other stuff
std::auto_ptr<intp;
}
Both of these would prevent the allocation of p from preventing the
construction of A (though if you are really that low on memory, do you
really want to carry on?) and will automatically handle the deletion of
the object when A is destroyed.

Generally speaking (meaning there are always special cases) I think
Andre's solution is the cleanest for most uses.
joe

[junw2000]

On Aug 22, 2:57*pm, gpderetta <[e-mail]:

On Aug 22, 11:15 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

class A
{
public:
* * A()
* * {
* * * * *try
* * * * *{
* * * * * * * *p = new int;
* * * * * * * *//Other lines that may throw exception.
* * * * *}
* * * * *catch(...)
* * * * *{
* * * * * * * *delete p;
* * * * *}

private:
* * *int *p;

};

If 'new int' throws, you'll be deleting an uninitialized pointer which
is UB.
It is safer and simpler to use a smart pointer.

HTH,

--
gpd

In fact, smart pointer will also delete p. Theoretically, they are the
same, rigth?

Jack

[gpderetta]

On Aug 24, 2:24 am, [e-mail] wrote:

On Aug 22, 2:57 pm, gpderetta <[e-mail]:

On Aug 22, 11:15 pm, [e-mail] wrote:

class A
{
public:
A()
{
try
{
p = new int;
//Other lines that may throw exception.
}
catch(...)
{
delete p;
}

private:
int *p;

};

If 'new int' throws, you'll be deleting an uninitialized pointer which
is UB.
It is safer and simpler to use a smart pointer.

In fact, smart pointer will also delete p.

The smart pointer will not delete 'p', 'p' will be the smart pointer :

struct A() {

A() p(new int) { /* do something with p */ }
private:
std::auto_ptr<intp;
};

Theoretically, they are the
same, rigth?

Wrong. If 'new int' trows, the smart pointer won't have been
constructed yet, so its destructor won't be called.

OTOH, if you instead reset p to 'new int' in the body of the
constructor, the smart pointer will have been default constructed. If
'new int' throws, p destructor will be called, but destroying a
default constructed smart pointer will not lead to UB (well, at least
for any reasonable smart pointer).

In general, the less you use try/catch, the easier is not to make
mistakes. RAII is your friend.

HTH,

--
gpd